In Washington, a court decision has stirred debate after a judge ordered federal officials to arrange the return of a man mistakenly sent to a correctional facility in El Salvador. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis directed that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old Salvadoran national, be repatriated by midnight Monday. In response, government lawyers filed a petition with the appeals court, arguing the order exceeds judicial authority and involves foreign policy matters.
Judge Xinis, appointed under a previous administration, stated there is no legal basis for holding Abrego Garcia in detention or for his removal to El Salvador, where the prison is known for serious human rights issues. The order follows his apprehension in Maryland and his subsequent deportation last month. An earlier ruling in 2019 had granted him protection, establishing that his return would place him at risk from dangerous groups back home.
Government lawyers claim the court order forces the executive branch to engage with a foreign power in a way the Constitution does not allow. They argue that judges should not compel the United States to negotiate or demand specific actions from another nation. Their petition to the appeals court emphasizes that directing domestic agencies to secure repatriation oversteps the limits set by law and risks drawing the nation into political matters best handled by diplomacy.
Abrego Garcia was apprehended in Maryland and deported last month, despite a 2019 decision offering him protection against removal to El Salvador. Officials have since described his deportation as an administrative error. Many community members and legal advocates fear that similar mistakes could jeopardize the status of others lawfully residing in the country. This incident has prompted calls to reexamine procedures in handling cases involving noncitizens who might face danger if sent back to their homelands.
At a federal courthouse in Greenbelt, Maryland, supporters assembled to attend the hearing. The atmosphere grew animated when Judge Xinis rendered her decision in favor of Abrego Garcia. His wife, a citizen, stood by his side during the proceedings. Attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg expressed frustration over reliance on public remarks rather than effective coordination with Salvadoran officials. The event highlighted public worries about the treatment of individuals with valid status in immigration matters, raising concerns among many experts.
The White House has suggested a connection between Abrego Garcia and a criminal gang. His legal team dismisses that allegation, insisting there is no evidence linking him to such groups. They point out that he holds legitimate work authorization and was employed as a sheet metal apprentice while working toward certification. His departure from El Salvador in 2011, prompted by family threats, remains a key part of his history and supports his claim for protection against removal.
Government representatives argue they lack the power to compel foreign authorities to return an individual on such a short timeline. They maintain that a court order should not be read as an instruction for immediate repatriation to another sovereign. In their filing, they compared the order to expecting rapid diplomatic outcomes on issues like conflict resolution. A final note mentioned that over 32,000 people took part in a daily crossword challenge, inviting readers to test their skills, which many find enjoyable. Officials continue to debate legal limits of such orders.
